(I) How the emanation of the
world from Brahma is conceived in Vedanta philosophy is of small
interest. It is almost purely mythological and indicates a very low knowledge
of physical science. Brahma is not indeed represented any longer as a maker or
a creator, as an architect or a potter. What we translate by creation
Srishti means really no more than a letting out and corresponds closely
with the theory of emanation. The Upanishads propose ever so many similes by
which they wish to render the concept of creation or emanation more
intelligible. One of the oldest similes applied to the production of the world
from Brahma is that of the spider drawing forth, i.e. producing, the web of
the world from itself. Another simile, which is meant to do away with what
there is left of efficient‑ besides material‑causality in the simile of the
spider which after all sill the throwing out and drawing back of the threads
of the world, is that of hair growing from the skull. Nor is the theory of
what we call evolution wanting in the Upanishads. One of the most frequent
similes used for this is the change of milk into curds. The curds are nothing
but the milk only under a different form. It was soon found however that this
simile violated the postulate that the One Being must not only be one but
that, if perfect in itself, it must be unchangeable. Shankara therefore
offered a new theory. It is distinguished by the name of Vivart from
the Parin.am or evolution theory, which is held by
Ramanuja. Vivart of Shankara means turning away. It teaches that the
Supreme Being remains always unchanged and that our believing that anything
else can exist beside it arises from Avidya i.e. nescience. Most likely
this Avidya or ignorance was first conceived as purely subjective, for
it is illustrated by the ignorance of a man who mistakes a rope for a snake.
In this case the rope remains all the time what it is, it is only our
ignorance which frightens us and determines our actions. In the same way
Brahma always remains the same, it is our ignorance only, which makes us see a
phenomenal world and a phenomenal God. Another favorite simile is our
mistaking mother‑of‑pearl for silver. The Vedantist says: We may take
it for silver but it always remains mother‑of‑pearl. So we may speak of the
snake and the rope, or of the silver and mother‑of‑pearl, as being one. And
yet we do not mean that the rope has actually undergone a change or has turned
into silver. After that the Vedantists argue that what the rope is to
the snake the Supreme Being is to the world, They go on to explain that when
they hold that the world is Brahma they do not mean that Brahma is actually
transformed into the world, for Brahma cannot change and cannot be
transformed. They mean that Brahma presents itself as the world or appears to
be the world. The world's reality is not its own but Brahma's, yet Brahma is
not the material cause of the world, as the spider is of the web, or the milk
of the curds, or the sea of the foam, or the clay of the jar (which is made by
the potter), but only the substratum, the illusory material cause. There would
be no snake without the rope, there would be no world without the Brahma, and
yet the rope does not become a snake nor does Brahma become the world. With
the Vedantists the phenomenal and the nominal are essentially the same.
The silver as we perceive and call it is the same as the mother‑of‑pearl;
without the mother‑of‑pearl there would be no silver for us. We impart to
mother‑of‑pearl the name and form of silver, and by the same process by which
we create silver the whole world was created by worlds and forms.

(m) Besides, the Vedanta
philosophy has its own theory as to the creation of the whole world out of
Brahma and Avidya. The purport of the philosophy however comes to this:
All being is Brahma, nothing can be except Brahma, while all that exists is an
illusory, not a real, modification of Brahma and is caused by name and form.
When the true knowledge arises, everything becomes known as Brahma only. We
may ask, whence the names and forms and whence the phantasmagoria of
unreality. The Vedantists has but one answer, it is simply due to
Avidya. There is another simile. Indian jugglers knew how to make people
believe that they saw two or three jugglers while there was only one. The
juggler himself remained one, knew himself to be one only‑like Brahma; but to
the spectators he appeared as many. But all these are similes only and with us
there would remain the question whence this nescience. The Vedantists
is satisfied with the conviction that for a time we are as a matter of fact
nescient and what he cares for chiefly is to find out, not how that nescience
arose but how it can be removed.

(n) What is the mode of
removing this ignorance? BharatiTirtha, a famous Vedantist,
says: "Neglecting the unreal creation consisting of mere name and form, one
should meditate on the Brahma and should ever practice internal as well as
external concentration. Internal concentration is of two kinds, Sviklp,
and Nirviklp. The first is the meditation of (on?) the subjective
Atma as the witness of the mental world‑passions, desires etc. arising in
the mind. The second is the fixing one's mind on the thought `I am Brahma',
[Brahma] which is described in the Vedas as self-existent, eternal,
all‑consciousness and pleasure, self‑illumined and unique in itself. That is
Nirviklp in which, through the ecstasy of the pleasure consequent upon
the knowledge of one's self, the sight as well as the world are both
overlooked and the mind stands like the jet of a lamp burning in place
protected from the slightest breeze. The separation in any external object of
sight, of name and form from its original substratum Sat is
Drishanuviddh external concentration. The meditation on the one, unique
and Sachidanand Brahma as the only reality in the universe is
Shabdanuvridh external concentration. The third nirvikalpa is, like
the one described before, cessation of all thought, from the enjoyment of one
eternal pleasure. One should devote one's time to these six kinds of Smadhi.3
The false identity of the material shell and the Universal Life being
dissolved and the universal Atman being thoroughly realized, wherever
the mind of the ascetic is directed there it naturally loses itself into one
or other of these Samadhi. That limit of limits being seen, the knot of
Ahamkar (egoism) is cut asunder, all doubts disappear, all actions
cease to affect."4

REFERENCES:

1. Gandhi does not actually
follow Shankara's Commentary chapter- wise though, of course, almost all the
issues here taken up do occur in this Commentary